http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/ma...143&ei=5087%0A
Quote:
|
Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University, has attracted notice for raising a pointed question: Do voters have any idea what they are doing? In his provocative new book, “The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies,” Caplan argues that “voters are worse than ignorant; they are, in a word, irrational — and vote accordingly.” Caplan’s complaint is not that special-interest groups might subvert the will of the people, or that government might ignore the will of the people. He objects to the will of the people itself.
|
Assuming you accept that the vast majority of voters have no relevant education or experience in national and world affairs, how can anyone suggest that democracy--even a democratic republic--is a good idea?
In my mind, it's not. There is no justifiable reason that every voter's opinion and views should be treated equally. Nor that every person should have the ability to vote. The right to
acquire the ability to vote, sure. I've often floated the idea of competency tests given out every 5 years or so to anyone who wants to take them, granting the top 10-15% percentiles with the ability to vote. This is by no means the ideal method and it has a ton of flaws (fairness of the tests; bias; the fact that some very intelligent, informed people simply suck ass at taking tests). But it's better than this universal suffrage crap.
I'd point out that those who wrote the Constitution never intended that everyone have the right to vote. The concept of universal suffrage wasn't introduced until several decades later.
